Unfortunately my search for information in Arabic about the changes
to the treaty was unsuccessful as well. The fact that the mausoleum was moved
from its original location is mentioned in some articles and blogs but I could
not find a single 'trusted' source like a government website in Arabic where it
was mentioned. That said, it is not surprising that Syria didn't publish old
treaties or documents online, they have only started to systematically publish
more information about laws and the new constitution recently.

Any
Turkish speakers here who can check? :-)

Best

Peter

Lowell G. McManus

At http://goo.gl/js48T8 , the Strange Maps web site considers the Turkish enclave at the Tomb of Sulayman Shah in Syria as a possible trigger for hostilities

Message 2 of 27
, Apr 2, 2014

At http://goo.gl/js48T8 , the Strange Maps web site
considers the Turkish enclave at the Tomb of Sulayman Shah in Syria as a
possible trigger for hostilities between the nations if it should be violated in
the Syrian civil war.

Lowell G.
McManusEagle Pass, Texas, USA

Dallen Timothy

I thought we had discussed this enclave in the past as not being a true sovereign enclave but rather just land owned by Turkey. However, I must be wrong, as

Message 3 of 27
, Apr 3, 2014

I thought we had discussed this enclave in the past as not being a true sovereign enclave but rather just land owned by Turkey. However, I must be wrong, as
the treaties seem to suggest it is an integral part of Turkey. Is this correct?

At
http://goo.gl/js48T8 , the Strange Maps web site considers the Turkish enclave at the Tomb of Sulayman Shah in Syria as a possible trigger for hostilities between the nations if it should be violated in the Syrian civil war.

Lowell G. McManus
Eagle Pass, Texas, USA

Lowell G. McManus

I don t know! Some say it is, and some say not. There is often a difference in the understanding of sovereign among different writers. It is common for

Message 4 of 27
, Apr 3, 2014

I don't know! Some say it is, and some say not. There is often
a difference in the understanding of "sovereign" among different writers.
It is common for journalists to describe embassies as "sovereign territory,"
when the are merely exempt from the legal jurisdiction of the host state.
Wikipedia describes the tomb as "a sort of exclave of the Republic of
Turkey." How's that for hedging?

The French-language text of the Franco-Turkish Agreement signed at Ankara
in 1921 appears at http://www.hri.org/docs/FT1921/Franco-Turkish_Pact_1921.pdf
, followed by a British government translation into English beginning on the
bottom of page 5. Article 8 describes a boundary between Turkey and French
Syria and provides for a bilateral commission to determine it. Article 9
then says that the tomb "shall remain, with its appurtenances, the property of
Turkey, who may appoint guardians for it and may hoist the Turkish flag
there."

Granted that the agreement is vague, but this still sounds to me very much
like an embassy or an American military cemetery abroad, neither of which
constitute enclaves of sovereignty. The agreement's explicit provisions to
permit the appointment of guardians and the hoisting the flag would have been
wholly unnecessary if the intent were to have conferred Turkish territorial
sovereignty on the tomb and its grounds.

Still, Turkey clearly has rights that it could defend if they were violated
in the current turmoil that is Syria.

I
thought we had discussed this enclave in the past as not being a true sovereign
enclave but rather just land owned by Turkey. However, I must be wrong, as the
treaties seem to suggest it is an integral part of Turkey. Is this
correct?

Dallen

Dallen Timothy

Thanks for your thoughts, Lowell. It s a hard one to define. I was thinking the same as you regarding the permission to guard and fly the flag. It kind of

Message 5 of 27
, Apr 3, 2014

Thanks for your thoughts, Lowell. It’s a hard one to define. I was thinking the same as you regarding the ‘permission’ to guard and fly the flag.

It kind of reminds me of
São João Baptista de Ajudá, the former Portuguese fort exclave in Benin, although there was no question that the Portuguese
fort was an integral part of Portuguese sovereign territory.

I did notice, though, that there is a heliport on the little Turkish ‘island’ outside the main fence, so that might be how Turkish soldiers/officials access the exclave rather
than carry arms across Syrian territory.

I was down your way (sort of close, anyway) last week at Ciudad Juarez and El Paso. Visited the border again at a few places. The tripoint (Monument 1) of New Mexico, Texas
and Chihuahua has really changed a lot since I was there last about three years ago. The city of Juarez has rebuilt a replica of the old ‘casa de adobe’ only a few meters inside of Mexico (Google Earth doesn’t show it yet), owing to its key role in the Mexican
Revolution. There is some additional border infrastructure and markers now too that weren’t there three years ago.

I don't know! Some say it is, and some say not. There is often a difference in the understanding of "sovereign" among different writers. It is common for journalists to describe
embassies as "sovereign territory," when the are merely exempt from the legal jurisdiction of the host state. Wikipedia describes the tomb as "a sort of exclave of the Republic of Turkey." How's that for hedging?

The French-language text of the Franco-Turkish Agreement signed at Ankara in 1921 appears at
http://www.hri.org/docs/FT1921/Franco-Turkish_Pact_1921.pdf , followed by a British government translation into English beginning on the bottom of page 5. Article 8 describes a boundary between Turkey and French Syria and provides for a bilateral commission
to determine it. Article 9 then says that the tomb "shall remain, with its appurtenances, the property of Turkey, who may appoint guardians for it and may hoist the Turkish flag there."

Granted that the agreement is vague, but this still sounds to me very much like an embassy or an American military cemetery abroad, neither of which constitute enclaves of sovereignty.
The agreement's explicit provisions to permit the appointment of guardians and the hoisting the flag would have been wholly unnecessary if the intent were to have conferred Turkish territorial sovereignty on the tomb and its grounds.

Still, Turkey clearly has rights that it could defend if they were violated in the current turmoil that is Syria.

I thought we had discussed this enclave in the past as not being a true sovereign enclave but rather just land owned by Turkey. However,
I must be wrong, as the treaties seem to suggest it is an integral part of Turkey. Is this correct?

Dallen

Lowell G. McManus

... I was at Monument No. 1 for the first and only time on August 23, 2011. Actually, the tripoint between Texas, New Mexico, and Chihuahua is in the Rio

Message 6 of 27
, Apr 3, 2014

Dallen
wrote:

>
I was down your
way (sort of close, anyway) last week at Ciudad Juarez and El Paso. Visited the
border again at a few places. The tripoint (Monument 1) of New Mexico, Texas and
Chihuahua has really changed a lot since I was there last about three years ago.
The city of Juarez has rebuilt a replica of the old ‘casa de adobe’ only a few
meters inside of Mexico (Google Earth doesn’t show it yet), owing to its key
role in the Mexican Revolution. There is some additional border infrastructure
and markers now too that weren’t there three years
ago.

I was at Monument No. 1 for the first and only time on August 23,
2011. Actually, the tripoint between Texas, New Mexico, and Chihuahua is
in the Rio Grande east of Monument No. 1. The monument is on the
international land boundary just before the line goes up into the
mountains. The adobe house was there then, but I didn't know what it
was. What was its role in the Mexican Revolution?

Note
that the 828-foot ASARCO concrete smokestack visible in one of the photos and a
600-foot neighbor were demolished about a year ago. See the video at http://goo.gl/xkjJik
and pay no attention to the idiot who says that it's going the wrong
way.

Thanks.

Lowell G.
McManusEagle Pass, Texas,
USA

Dallen Timothy

Ya, it was also built in 2011, so you must have been there just after it was built. Yes, the tripoint is in the “river”…. From:

Message 7 of 27
, Apr 3, 2014

Ya, it was also built in 2011, so you must have been there just after it was built. Yes, the tripoint is in the “river”….

I was down your way (sort of close, anyway) last week at Ciudad Juarez and El Paso. Visited the border again at a few places. The tripoint (Monument 1) of New Mexico, Texas
and Chihuahua has really changed a lot since I was there last about three years ago. The city of Juarez has rebuilt a replica of the old ‘casa de adobe’ only a few meters inside of Mexico (Google Earth doesn’t show it yet), owing to its key role in the Mexican
Revolution. There is some additional border infrastructure and markers now too that weren’t there three years ago.

I was at Monument No. 1 for the first and only time on August 23, 2011. Actually, the tripoint between Texas, New Mexico, and Chihuahua is in the Rio Grande east of Monument No. 1.
The monument is on the international land boundary just before the line goes up into the mountains. The adobe house was there then, but I didn't know what it was. What was its role in the Mexican Revolution?

Note that the 828-foot ASARCO concrete smokestack visible in one of the photos and a 600-foot neighbor were demolished about a year ago. See the video at
http://goo.gl/xkjJik and pay no attention to the idiot who says that it's going the wrong way.

Thanks.

Lowell G. McManus
Eagle Pass, Texas, USA

Goyta' F. Villela Jr.

... And I m a native Portuguese speaker who is uncertain of the pronunciation of the fort s name - specifically, the last word. I ve seen it mentioned as

Message 8 of 27
, Apr 3, 2014

> It kind of reminds me of São João Baptista de Ajudá, the former
> Portuguese fort exclave in Benin, although there was no question
> that the Portuguese fort was an integral part of Portuguese
> sovereign territory.

And I'm a native Portuguese speaker who is uncertain of the pronunciation of the fort's name - specifically, the last word. I've seen it mentioned as "...da Ajuda" (no acute accent on the last "a"), which means "[Saint John Baptist] of the help" or "of the assistance" in Portuguese. The diacritical on the last syllable completely changes the pronunciation: "ajuda" ("help") is pronounced "ah-ZHOO-dah" (the "j" being pronounced in Portuguese the same as in French, or as "s" in English "vision" or "Asia"), while "Ajudá" is pronounced "ah-zhoo-DAH", with the stress on the last syllable.

I find it more likely that the accented spelling is the right one. Wikipedia says that "Ouidah" is an adaptation of the local name "Xwéda" (I don't know in which native language, as many are spoken in that area). The Portuguese probably just picked a familiar similar-sounding word and adapted it to make the name easier for them to pronounce. On the other hand, devout Catholics expect saints (like Saint John Baptist) to help or assist them with their troubles, so it may have had a double meaning.

It seems that in colonial times, the fort was considered a dependency of the "overseas province" ("província ultramarina", the euphemism the Portuguese used for their colonies) of São Tomé and Príncipe, now an independent nation. I wonder what would have happened if after the Carnation Revolution, Portugal didn't specifically relinquish sovereignty over the fort before granting independence to STP. Would STP be claiming now the fort as an exclave on the Beninese shore?

Best regards,

Goytá
São Paulo, Brazil

Bill Baron

Glad to see they put some work into the area. I took this picture in 2001 with a coworker named Richard. The area was defaced in many ways, suggesting that

Glad to see they put some work into the area. I took this picture in 2001 with a coworker named Richard. The area was defaced in many ways, suggesting that it was not policed very well, so you could infer that illicit cross-border activity probably took place here back then.

A neat nearby border oddity is in the second picture, which I took through the border fence about a mile to the west in 2011. It shows a Mexican Aduana border inspection canopy, as though a legal border crossing once existed here. I did some research, and it appears that US and Mexican facilities were built for a border crossing here around 1971, but political pressure from Texas (which gains revenue from a tax on Mexican liquor importations) prevented US Customs from providing staff at the New Mexico crossing. As a result, in spite of numerous ribbon cuttings, the crossing, as far as I can tell, never opened. If anyone else knows anything more about this, please let me know.

> I was down your way (sort of close, anyway) last week at Ciudad Juarez and El Paso. Visited the border again at a few places. The tripoint (Monument 1) of New Mexico, Texas and Chihuahua has really changed a lot since I was there last about three years ago. The city of Juarez has rebuilt a replica of the old ‘casa de adobe’ only a few meters inside of Mexico (Google Earth doesn’t show it yet), owing to its key role in the Mexican Revolution. There is some additional border infrastructure and markers now too that weren’t there three years ago.

I was at Monument No. 1 for the first and only time on August 23, 2011. Actually, the tripoint between Texas, New Mexico, and Chihuahua is in the Rio Grande east of Monument No. 1. The monument is on the international land boundary just before the line goes up into the mountains. The adobe house was there then, but I didn't know what it was. What was its role in the Mexican Revolution?

Note that the 828-foot ASARCO concrete smokestack visible in one of the photos and a 600-foot neighbor were demolished about a year ago. See the video at http://goo.gl/xkjJik and pay no attention to the idiot who says that it's going the wrong way.

Thanks.

Lowell G. McManusEagle Pass, Texas, USA

Lowell G. McManus

Bill, Thanks for the report from 2001. Attached is my August 2011 photo, showing the new location of the New Mexico historical marker for El Paso del Río

Thanks for the report from 2001. Attached is my August 2011 photo,
showing the new location of the New Mexico historical marker for "El Paso del
Río del Norte." It is between the south one of the pair of high-level
railroad bridges and the private one-lane low-level road bridge that belongs to
the American Eagle Brick Company.

Glad
to see they put some work into the area. I took this picture in 2001 with
a coworker named Richard. The area was defaced in many ways, suggesting
that it was not policed very well, so you could infer that illicit cross-border
activity probably took place here back then.

A
neat nearby border oddity is in the second picture, which I took through the
border fence about a mile to the west in 2011. It shows a Mexican Aduana
border inspection canopy, as though a legal border crossing once existed
here. I did some research, and it appears that US and Mexican facilities
were built for a border crossing here around 1971, but political pressure from
Texas (which gains revenue from a tax on Mexican liquor importations) prevented
US Customs from providing staff at the New Mexico crossing. As a
result, in spite of numerous ribbon cuttings, the crossing, as far as I can
tell, never opened. If anyone else knows anything more about this, please
let me know.

-Bill
Baron

Dallen Timothy

There’s also these vehicle barriers now just inside the US. The yellow pole marks the borderline. There’s also these vehicle barriers now just inside the

There’s
also these vehicle barriers now just inside the US. The yellow pole marks the
borderline.

Goyta' F. Villela Jr.

... Pity that the sign mentions Our *Lord* of Guadalupe (while still using the feminine pronoun, Nuestra ). Some devouts might find it disrespectful. One

Message 13 of 27
, Apr 4, 2014

> Bill,
>
> Thanks for the report from 2001. Attached is my August 2011 photo,
> showing the new location of the New Mexico historical marker for "El
> Paso del R�o del Norte."

Pity that the sign mentions "Our *Lord* of Guadalupe" (while still using the feminine pronoun, "Nuestra"). Some devouts might find it disrespectful. One would think that in a border zone with Mexico, they would be both more proficient in Spanish and more careful... especially with such basic and primary Spanish and a very common word.

Best regards,

Goyt�
S�o Paulo, Brazil

Diego González

Last week I searched for the old discussion about it and the conclussion was that it s not a true exclave but an extraterritorial cementery. ... --

Message 14 of 27
, Apr 7, 2014

Last week I searched for the old discussion about it and the conclussion was that it's not a true exclave but an extraterritorial cementery.

Thanks for your thoughts, Lowell. It’s a hard one to define. I was thinking the same as you regarding the ‘permission’ to guard and fly the flag.

It kind of reminds me of
São João Baptista de Ajudá, the former Portuguese fort exclave in Benin, although there was no question that the Portuguese
fort was an integral part of Portuguese sovereign territory.

I did notice, though, that there is a heliport on the little Turkish ‘island’ outside the main fence, so that might be how Turkish soldiers/officials access the exclave rather
than carry arms across Syrian territory.

I was down your way (sort of close, anyway) last week at Ciudad Juarez and El Paso. Visited the border again at a few places. The tripoint (Monument 1) of New Mexico, Texas
and Chihuahua has really changed a lot since I was there last about three years ago. The city of Juarez has rebuilt a replica of the old ‘casa de adobe’ only a few meters inside of Mexico (Google Earth doesn’t show it yet), owing to its key role in the Mexican
Revolution. There is some additional border infrastructure and markers now too that weren’t there three years ago.

I don't know! Some say it is, and some say not. There is often a difference in the understanding of "sovereign" among different writers. It is common for journalists to describe
embassies as "sovereign territory," when the are merely exempt from the legal jurisdiction of the host state. Wikipedia describes the tomb as "a sort of exclave of the Republic of Turkey." How's that for hedging?

The French-language text of the Franco-Turkish Agreement signed at Ankara in 1921 appears at
http://www.hri.org/docs/FT1921/Franco-Turkish_Pact_1921.pdf , followed by a British government translation into English beginning on the bottom of page 5. Article 8 describes a boundary between Turkey and French Syria and provides for a bilateral commission
to determine it. Article 9 then says that the tomb "shall remain, with its appurtenances, the property of Turkey, who may appoint guardians for it and may hoist the Turkish flag there."

Granted that the agreement is vague, but this still sounds to me very much like an embassy or an American military cemetery abroad, neither of which constitute enclaves of sovereignty.
The agreement's explicit provisions to permit the appointment of guardians and the hoisting the flag would have been wholly unnecessary if the intent were to have conferred Turkish territorial sovereignty on the tomb and its grounds.

Still, Turkey clearly has rights that it could defend if they were violated in the current turmoil that is Syria.

I thought we had discussed this enclave in the past as not being a true sovereign enclave but rather just land owned by Turkey. However,
I must be wrong, as the treaties seem to suggest it is an integral part of Turkey. Is this correct?